If General Abizaid thinks world Okay/Iran Nukes...then Why Not? Wouldn't it be a Detterent in ME?

[KoKo]

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

Former U.S. Commander Says World Could Live With a Nuclear-Armed Iran

ROBERT BURNS
AP News

Sep 17, 2007 18:26 EDT

Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/abizaid_world_could_abide_nucl.php

[TwilightGardener]

1. Wow. A voice of sanity--thanks, General.

edit to add--I still think we should keep pressure up to not allow them to develop weapons.

[daninthemoon]

2. If the world can live with all the loose/ missing nukes from former

USSR, why can't it live with Iran's. MAD still holds true. Sad, but true. If Iran fired a single nuke in anger, the US would surely vaporize every square inch of their land.

[Baby Snooks]

3. The problem...

The problem is the target of an Iranian nuclear missile would be Tel Aviv. Which would set off a chain reaction. We would target Tehran. And then Moscow would target Washington. And we would target Moscow. And then Moscow would target London. All within minutes. In the worst scenario, both the US and Russia would simply fire all of their missiles. To avenge their own expected annihilation. China in all probability would merely sit back and then use the threat of their own missiles against the remaining countries. And China, in essence, would rule the world.

The world really does not "live" well with many of the countries that have obtained nuclear weapons. Particularly North Korea. Most of these countries regard nuclear weapons as defensive. North Korea appears to regard nuclear weapons as tools of negotiation. The main danger with Pakistan is India. You have the same scenario between Pakistan and India that you have between the US and Russia. There is always the tension caused by the realization that two countries could destroy each other within the span of several minutes.

The rhetoric of Tehran is an indication that they would regard them as offensive. And might be willing to take a chance that in the end, no one would care about Israel. What is more chilling is the possibility that no one would. And then Tehran might launch a second missile. And then a third. And destroy most of the Middle East before anyone in fact cared.

If you watched Christiane Amanpour's special "God's Warriors" you will realize that the world at the moment is dealing with a fundamentalism which in great part is fueling the situation. An ayatollah, a rabbi, a minister might influence a situation and cause someone to launch the first missile. Believing it is merely fulfilling a prophecy. The messiah is coming. From the sky indeed.

It is in the best interests of the world that an ayatollah not be given the opportunity to influence a nuclear decision. Particularly since most of them cannot refrain from calling for the "death of the West."

And if we attack the nuclear facilities in Iran we may be setting off the chain reaction ourselves. Russia is an ally of Iran. No one is sure what would happen if Israel did. It did so once before in Iraq. But Iraq did not have the capability to retaliate that Iran does. And even a non-nuclear retaliation by Iran against Israel might still set off the chain reaction since Israel might use its own nuclear missiles at that point and target Iran.

Certainly a question for the Democratic presidential candidates - how would you handle the situation with Iran - since they will most likely have to deal with the situation. It appears the United Nations is not going to give Bush another "blank check" with regard to Iran as it did with Iraq.

[daninthemoon]

4. Yes, Iran has a lot of zealots, but so do we. Not real comforting in

either case, but there is also a large, perhaps even a majority there as here who only want rational peace. Why would Moscow launch on Britain in defense of Iran, especially if Iran fired on Israel first? Iran is not a satelite. Iran will someday have the bomb. Is there really any way to stop it? They may well already have some of the loose nukes from USSR.

[Blackhatjack]

6. The US and Russia would never launch all their nukes in a doomsday scenario...

Both sides are effectively 'deterred' from such a launch because neither could be assured of stopping enough incoming missiles to prevent suffering unacceptable levels of destruction.

That is why both sides engaged in SALT treaties.

The real danger in the world today is the possibility that a country/or group might use a low yield 'tactical nuke' which could spark a single conventional nuke as a response.

Tactical nukes are an invitation to other countries to develop and use similar weapons.
They are the real Pandora's Box that must not be opened.

[Blackhatjack]

5. Of course he is right. Here is the rub....

Countries can be deterred from using nuclear weapons. Security of those nuclear weapons becomes paramount, since an extremist group with such a weapon might use it to make a statement.

Also, the perceived value in having a nuclear weapon is that it ensures the present ADministration from being the target of 'regime change.' North Korea believed that. Libya believed it at one time.

And now that Iran has been singled out for 'regime change' (just like Saddam), it is not surprising that the present leadership in Iran thinks they need nukes.